Refined vs Whole Grains
Replies
-
Refined grains usually have lower carbs, calories, fat, and protein than their whole counterparts, so they are more effective for weight loss.0
-
There is a lot of very good reasons to avoid white rice, white bread, white pasta and such.
Quite the contrary, those foods (especially the white rice) are preferential after a hard workout to restock muscle glycogen. I can see if you are sedentary... but if you exercise (and you should) that blanket statement is wrong IMO.
0 -
Refined carbohydrates are not too hard to avoid. Think about it - Bagels, Cakes, Pastas, most store bought bread, etc. Not healthy choices. Coincidentally, these are also things that you need to eat a lot of to feel full. Not only that, but your body burns through them so fast you'll feel hungry later.
Nobody's saying you can't have the occasional glass of chocolate milk. Milk has protein and has naturally occurring sugar. It's the chocolate you have to be careful about. If you have room for it in your daily intake, then by all means indulge, but try not to make a habit out of it. America is addicted to sugar.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Look for breads with NO high fructose corn syrup and the lowest sugar count. Look for breads with SHORT ingredient lists (and then store them in the fridge).
Never EVER store bread in the fridge, unless you like stale bread.
I beg to differ. A LOT of the bread you get at the grocery store is actually delivered there frozen! I work at a grocery.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Two words: Epidemiological Studies
Two more words: Lurking Variables
People have been told that whole grains are better, so those that choose whole grains are more likely to be those that are generally health conscious. No surprise that these same people would be healthier.
Hold everything else constant and you would see zero difference when replacing white with brown rice.
So a 10 year long study with 75,000 participants has zero value?
Two things occurred at the same time and the evidence shows a correlation. I'm understanding you to say correlation doesn't equal causation. Therefore all scientific studies tell us nothing?
If whole grain is just one part of a healthier diet that healthier people use...and clearly are healthier...we should just assume that whole grains have no value...because? We can say for certian that whole grain didn't stop these people from being healthy...right?
Lets look at the reverse side.
Can you please find me a study showing white flour decreases a person's risk of heart disease? Or that it has zero impact on blood sugar levels? Or contains more fiber than whole grains (not artificially added after processing please). I'd love to read the supporting evidence for your viewpoint.
I'm very open minded. 0 -
Number 1 work on staying under your calorie goal. Once you are good at that then start to worry about Macro and Micro numbers. Eat any and everything you enjoy in moderation.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »arditarose wrote: »Shadowpenn wrote: »Have recently started working out to shed body fat but I keep hearing that whole grains are much better than white rice, bread etc. How true is it?
I am already in the process of cutting down sugar and junk food but would love a diet plan where I don't have to give up stuff like chocolate, chocolate milk etc completely for a few months (as everyone around me keeps telling me).
Most people around here who have been super successful did not give up any of that stuff. Also, working out does not shed body fat. Caloric deficit does. Good luck!
Lol. Not most people. Just a few who like to state it really loudly and often. Kinda reminds me of my neighbour's dog barking ...
There is a lot of very good reasons to avoid white rice, white bread, white pasta and such. MFP is probably not the place to ask that question though, try some research on the net, or talk to a qualified professional.
A lot of very old Asians and Italians would disagree.
And many of them would question the sheer amount of rice, bread and pasta Americans call "moderation".
So then it's not really "moderation." No one is saying that people should eat so much that it has negative implications for health, whether due to excess calories or crowding out more nutrient dense foods. What I never understand is why the obvious fact that you should consider your calorie needs, overall diet, and activity level when it comes to how much higher-calorie, lower-nutrient foods is included (and we could probably debate what these foods are, but I personally would likely include at least white bread and really any kind of rice) always becomes "you should cut out these foods if you want to be healthy."
Among other things, rice is a great source of energy, which matters if you are trying to get enough calories to support an active life and quite likely matters less to many sedentary Americans who would do well to cut excess calories from largely neutral foods. And I say this despite the fact that I don't find--contrary to the insistence of some of the biggest low carb evangelists in these parts--that eating some rice with veggies and meat has any negative effect on my blood sugar or hunger levels, etc. I don't understand why people must insist that their personal physical reactions are universal.And some of the older ones would question why some of what Americans eat is called "bread".
When I eat bread, whether white or whole grain, it's good bread. I don't assume that's not the case for others, but also I don't assume my taste is shared by others. If there's something in the bread that specific people eat (in true moderation, of course, as determined by their overall diets and needs) that is harmful to them, I think one could focus on the specific ingredient or ingredients rather than insisting that the problem is "bread" or "white bread" generally, and thus that it must be cut out if one cares about health.0 -
nuttynanners wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Look for breads with NO high fructose corn syrup and the lowest sugar count. Look for breads with SHORT ingredient lists (and then store them in the fridge).
Never EVER store bread in the fridge, unless you like stale bread.
I beg to differ. A LOT of the bread you get at the grocery store is actually delivered there frozen! I work at a grocery.
Frozen, not refrigerated. Bread degrades most quickly at temperatures between 32 and 50 degrees Fahrenheit.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Refined carbs are whole grains that have basically been bleached so all the good nutrients and fiber have gone completely. Whole grains are higher in fiber, vitamins and nutrients.
Eh. The fiber benefits of most whole grains are vastly overrated. Just look at the actual numbers, especially for something like whole wheat pasta or brown rice. I eat steel cut oats on occasion because I like them, but the amount of fiber in them is nothing to write home about. Beans (among other things) are a far better source for fiber.
And white flour, rice, etc. is enriched--the nutrients removed are added back in. Anyone who claims that doesn't count or is unnatural (as if whole grains weren't also) just better not be one of the big defenders of store-bought almond milk (for all its nutrients, like extra calcium!) in these parts.
I personally tend to limit grains (not worth the calories, IMO) and eat whole grains when possible (I prefer most whole grain breads and think they are more filling), but the idea that there's some dramatic nutrient difference seems more ideology than reality to me.
For SOME there may be a difference with the effect on blood sugar and how it effects hunger afterwards, generally people with preexisting insulin issues, but the repeated claim that this is the case for everyone, regardless of what you eat with these foods, is simply false. In particular, the glycemic index tests foods on their own, but of course eating them with other foods changes the GI, and more often than not people aren't just eating white rice or a piece of white bread, I suspect. I did once upon a time have a not right for me habit of eating a bagel for breakfast (dumb not only because it wasn't filling, but because it was just about convenience, not any particular desire for bagel-based breakfasts), but I suspect the habit wouldn't have been remarkably better for me if I'd eaten a whole grain bagel instead of a white one (in fact I did buy the whole grain one sometimes). Probably I would have benefitted more from just adding some lox, and cutting calories elsewhere.
0 -
independant2406 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Two words: Epidemiological Studies
Two more words: Lurking Variables
People have been told that whole grains are better, so those that choose whole grains are more likely to be those that are generally health conscious. No surprise that these same people would be healthier.
Hold everything else constant and you would see zero difference when replacing white with brown rice.
So a 10 year long study with 75,000 participants has zero value?
Two things occurred at the same time and the evidence shows a correlation. I'm understanding you to say correlation doesn't equal causation.
Not two things. Several things. Singling out ONE variable and claiming a causal effect is nonsense.Therefore all scientific studies tell us nothing?
Not all studies. Epidemiological studies are useless in determining a causal relationship. They are useful insofar as they are hypothesis-generating, nothing more.If whole grain is just one part of a healthier diet that healthier people use...and clearly are healthier...we should just assume that whole grains have no value...because? We can say for certian that whole grain didn't stop these people from being healthy...right?
Nor do refined grains, all else being equal.Lets look at the reverse side.
Can you please find me a study showing white flour decreases a person's risk of heart disease? Or that it has zero impact on blood sugar levels? Or contains more fiber than whole grains (not artificially added after processing please). I'd love to read the supporting evidence for your viewpoint. I'm very open minded.
Today's word is strawman. Nobody said whole grains were bad for you. The point is that in context of a healthy lifestyle and diet, the effect size when replacing refined grains with whole grains is trivial.
0 -
-
There is a lot of very good reasons to avoid white rice, white bread, white pasta and such.
Quite the contrary, those foods (especially the white rice) are preferential after a hard workout to restock muscle glycogen. I can see if you are sedentary... but if you exercise (and you should) that blanket statement is wrong IMO.
Except that they didn't make a blanket statement. They said there are a lot of good reason to avoid white rice, etc., which there are. They never said there were no good reasons to eat it.
Yes, after a workout would be a fine time to have some sugar or refined carbs. And no, there is nothing wrong with that if you do it in moderation. But that doesn't mean whole grains aren't better for your long term health.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Eh. The fiber benefits of most whole grains are vastly overrated. Just look at the actual numbers, especially for something like whole wheat pasta or brown rice. I eat steel cut oats on occasion because I like them, but the amount of fiber in them is nothing to write home about. Beans (among other things) are a far better source for fiber.
Since when were we comparing whole grains to beans? I'm pretty sure we were comparing whole grains to bleached grains.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Eh. The fiber benefits of most whole grains are vastly overrated. Just look at the actual numbers, especially for something like whole wheat pasta or brown rice. I eat steel cut oats on occasion because I like them, but the amount of fiber in them is nothing to write home about. Beans (among other things) are a far better source for fiber.
Since when were we comparing whole grains to beans? I'm pretty sure we were comparing whole grains to bleached grains.
Again, the point is that whole grains (especially something like brown rice or whole wheat pasta) are not a particularly fabulous source of fiber, and there are many other sources of fiber.
0 -
Yes, after a workout would be a fine time to have some sugar or refined carbs. And no, there is nothing wrong with that if you do it in moderation. But that doesn't mean whole grains aren't better for your long term health.
It's all in the context. Whole grains are actually worse for you after a hard workout. The fiber slows down the process of restocking glycogen stores. Refined carbs are preferential, and thusly would view them in moderation post workout to be a negative...
That said, I do eat whole grains... IMO, variety is king.0 -
There is a lot of very good reasons to avoid white rice, white bread, white pasta and such.
Quite the contrary, those foods (especially the white rice) are preferential after a hard workout to restock muscle glycogen. I can see if you are sedentary... but if you exercise (and you should) that blanket statement is wrong IMO.
Except that they didn't make a blanket statement. They said there are a lot of good reason to avoid white rice, etc., which there are. They never said there were no good reasons to eat it.
Yes, after a workout would be a fine time to have some sugar or refined carbs. And no, there is nothing wrong with that if you do it in moderation. But that doesn't mean whole grains aren't better for your long term health.
Still waiting for the data showing long term effects that you claimed existed.
Another poster already linked several large studies, all of which were immediately dismissed. I agree epidemiology isn't great science, but when 90% of epidemiology studies performed show the same thing than the conclusion becomes much more likely.
If you're looking for well designed long term randomized control trials on dietary patterns you'll be looking for a long time because they don't exist.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »
Not two things. Several things. Singling out ONE variable and claiming a causal effect is nonsense.
Not all studies. Epidemiological studies are useless in determining a causal relationship. They are useful insofar as they are hypothesis-generating, nothing more.
Nor do refined grains, all else being equal.
Today's word is strawman. Nobody said whole grains were bad for you. The point is that in context of a healthy lifestyle and diet, the effect size when replacing refined grains with whole grains is trivial.
Aww. A word of the day. Awesome.
Causal relationships can be tested and cross-examined over time to determine a true link. Do you agree? How long does a causal relationship have to be proven in order to become a truth?
At what point can we be satisfied that there is a statistically significant correlation? Of anything?
I believe the most effective way of doing this is through a controlled study and there have been a few so far regarding whole grains (small ones). If a multitude of long term epidemiological studies and several case controlled studies are pointing to the benefits of whole grain then at what point can we declare the idea truth or bunk?
I'll wholeheartedly agree that the "fat makes us fat" debate was an error in in equating correlation with causation.
However, it can just as easily be pointed out many people used "correlation doesn't = causation" to deny that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer... and that didn't turn out so well.
Correlation doesn't always = causation. But sometimes it does and that for me is why scientific studies "epidemiological" or not are important.
So your evidence that whole grain and refined grains are equal is?
The effective size of replacing refined grains with whole grains (in the grand scheme of a "healthy lifestyle") may be "trivial" to you but it would be your personal opinion about the subject not a fact that has been proven by science in any way so far.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Eh. The fiber benefits of most whole grains are vastly overrated. Just look at the actual numbers, especially for something like whole wheat pasta or brown rice. I eat steel cut oats on occasion because I like them, but the amount of fiber in them is nothing to write home about. Beans (among other things) are a far better source for fiber.
Since when were we comparing whole grains to beans? I'm pretty sure we were comparing whole grains to bleached grains.
Again, the point is that whole grains (especially something like brown rice or whole wheat pasta) are not a particularly fabulous source of fiber, and there are many other sources of fiber.
Well I would agree with you that whole grains aren't the best source of fiber. But in the context of a varied diet, choosing whole grains over white grains will probably be better for you in the long run because most people do not get adequate fiber. Fruits, veggies, legumes, etc., all have been shown to have long term health benefits as well and are all great sources of fiber too.
0 -
Whole and refined grain don't have to be equal to justify eating one over the other, both work in a balanced diet and epidemiology regarding smoking was a 4000 % increase in cancer, not the less than 1% in the first quartile....where anything can happen. Epidemiology didn't work for Harvard when they were convinced that because of the 80% chance of a cancer improvement with HRT women where then placed on HRT and many deaths occured directly related to the treatment.....wonder why, because epidemiology with small %'s mean nothing, absolutely nothing........independant2406 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »
Not two things. Several things. Singling out ONE variable and claiming a causal effect is nonsense.
Not all studies. Epidemiological studies are useless in determining a causal relationship. They are useful insofar as they are hypothesis-generating, nothing more.
Nor do refined grains, all else being equal.
Today's word is strawman. Nobody said whole grains were bad for you. The point is that in context of a healthy lifestyle and diet, the effect size when replacing refined grains with whole grains is trivial.
Aww. A word of the day. Awesome.
Causal relationships can be tested and cross-examined over time to determine a true link. Do you agree? How long does a causal relationship have to be proven in order to become a truth?
At what point can we be satisfied that there is a statistically significant correlation? Of anything?
I believe the most effective way of doing this is through a controlled study and there have been a few so far regarding whole grains (small ones). If a multitude of long term epidemiological studies and several case controlled studies are pointing to the benefits of whole grain then at what point can we declare the idea truth or bunk?
I'll wholeheartedly agree that the "fat makes us fat" debate was an error in in equating correlation with causation.
However, it can just as easily be pointed out many people used "correlation doesn't = causation" to deny that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer... and that didn't turn out so well.
Correlation doesn't always = causation. But sometimes it does and that for me is why scientific studies "epidemiological" or not are important.
So your evidence that whole grain and refined grains are equal is?
The effective size of replacing refined grains with whole grains (in the grand scheme of a "healthy lifestyle") may be "trivial" to you but it would be your personal opinion about the subject not a fact that has been proven by science in any way so far.
0 -
Sprouted grains must be stored in the fridge.FunkyTobias wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Look for breads with NO high fructose corn syrup and the lowest sugar count. Look for breads with SHORT ingredient lists (and then store them in the fridge).
Never EVER store bread in the fridge, unless you like stale bread.
0 -
Bread can be stored in the fridge......amazing that people think otherwise, but then again 6 million Americans believe alien insects run the gov't.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Sprouted grains must be stored in the fridge.FunkyTobias wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Look for breads with NO high fructose corn syrup and the lowest sugar count. Look for breads with SHORT ingredient lists (and then store them in the fridge).
Never EVER store bread in the fridge, unless you like stale bread.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »You miss the point. Firstly, wholegrain flour does not reduce the chance of heart disease.
The research thus far shows those who incorporate whole grains into their diets (vs non whole grains) have a decreased risk of heart disease.
No studies so far have proven that non whole grains have the same benefits.
herrspoons wrote: »It may assist in doing so by reducing cholesterol because of its fibre content, however no absolute link has been proven. In addition, if you can provide any study that reasonable consumption of white flour has a meaningful impact on blood sugar, to the point where it is abnormal, then feel free to do so.
"Reasonable consumption" cannot be scientifically quantified. I already provided evidence that highly processed foods impact blood glucose. Please see the Harvard school of public health documentation on carbohydrates/blood sugar and the glycemic index I posted earlier in the thread.
Here's another one.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/truth-about-white-foods
"The body absorbs processed grains and simple sugars relatively quickly. Increased blood sugar triggers a release of insulin, and, in an hour or two after eating, hunger returns."
American Heart Association
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full
"A recent report from the Nurses’ Health Study showed that women who consumed diets with a high glycemic load* (increased blood glucose excursions associated with intake of sweets or highly processed starches and sweets) had an increased CHD risk, with those in the highest quintile having a >2-fold risk during 10 years of follow-up.7 Simple carbohydrate alone was also predictive but did not reach statistical significance. This analysis controlled for total energy intake and other major dietary and nondietary risk factors."
(same study I mentioned above in my first post 75,000+ participants in a 10 year long study)
American Diabetic Association:
"There is no end in sight to the debate as to whether grains help you lose weight, or if they promote weight gain. Even more importantly, do they help or hinder blood glucose management?
One thing is for sure. If you are going to eat grain foods, pick the ones that are the most nutritious. Choose whole grains. Whole grains are rich in vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals and fiber."
http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/making-healthy-food-choices/grains-and-starchy-vegetables.html#sthash.v2vR7Cxp.dpuf0 -
If grain refined or whole is left out of a diet blood glucose management improves as welll as other heath markers, so now what?independant2406 wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »You miss the point. Firstly, wholegrain flour does not reduce the chance of heart disease.
The research thus far shows those who incorporate whole grains into their diets (vs non whole grains) have a decreased risk of heart disease.
No studies so far have proven that non whole grains have the same benefits.
herrspoons wrote: »It may assist in doing so by reducing cholesterol because of its fibre content, however no absolute link has been proven. In addition, if you can provide any study that reasonable consumption of white flour has a meaningful impact on blood sugar, to the point where it is abnormal, then feel free to do so.
"Reasonable consumption" cannot be scientifically quantified. I already provided evidence that highly processed foods impact blood glucose. Please see the Harvard school of public health documentation on carbohydrates/blood sugar and the glycemic index I posted earlier in the thread.
Here's another one.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/truth-about-white-foods
"The body absorbs processed grains and simple sugars relatively quickly. Increased blood sugar triggers a release of insulin, and, in an hour or two after eating, hunger returns."
American Heart Association
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/4/523.full
"A recent report from the Nurses’ Health Study showed that women who consumed diets with a high glycemic load* (increased blood glucose excursions associated with intake of sweets or highly processed starches and sweets) had an increased CHD risk, with those in the highest quintile having a >2-fold risk during 10 years of follow-up.7 Simple carbohydrate alone was also predictive but did not reach statistical significance. This analysis controlled for total energy intake and other major dietary and nondietary risk factors."
(same study I mentioned above in my first post 75,000+ participants in a 10 year long study)
American Diabetic Association:
"There is no end in sight to the debate as to whether grains help you lose weight, or if they promote weight gain. Even more importantly, do they help or hinder blood glucose management?
One thing is for sure. If you are going to eat grain foods, pick the ones that are the most nutritious. Choose whole grains. Whole grains are rich in vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals and fiber."
http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/making-healthy-food-choices/grains-and-starchy-vegetables.html#sthash.v2vR7Cxp.dpuf
0 -
Exactly.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Two years ago it was the "eat more to weigh less" crowd.WalkingAlong wrote: »arditarose wrote: »Shadowpenn wrote: »Have recently started working out to shed body fat but I keep hearing that whole grains are much better than white rice, bread etc. How true is it?
I am already in the process of cutting down sugar and junk food but would love a diet plan where I don't have to give up stuff like chocolate, chocolate milk etc completely for a few months (as everyone around me keeps telling me).
Most people around here who have been super successful did not give up any of that stuff. Also, working out does not shed body fat. Caloric deficit does. Good luck!
Lol. Not most people. Just a few who like to state it really loudly and often. Kinda reminds me of my neighbour's dog barking ...
Two years ago here there was no "IIFYM" contingent. Now it's the WHOLE PLACE, or at least anyone with any success, if you believe the barking dogs.
How does bread dry out more quickly in the frig if it's in a closed plastic bag?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/08/foods-in-fridge_n_5280137.html
0 -
its the biggest crock of crap since the food pyramid. Whole grains are usually the same or more in calories. The only potential difference is that Glycemic Index might be significantly lower, but its not. Whole grain bread only has a marginally lower GI then white bread.
Any food that is less processed may very well be more healthy for you, but that doesn't mean it will help you lose weight faster.0 -
Well OP, as you can see, the controversy continues... At least the generous folks on this thread provided enough links where you can read and come to your own conclusion!
These forums are lousy for definitive answers, but great starting points for your own research
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Bread can be stored in the fridge......amazing that people think otherwise, but then again 6 million Americans believe alien insects run the gov't.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Sprouted grains must be stored in the fridge.FunkyTobias wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Look for breads with NO high fructose corn syrup and the lowest sugar count. Look for breads with SHORT ingredient lists (and then store them in the fridge).
Never EVER store bread in the fridge, unless you like stale bread.
Real bread anyway.
0 -
I eat whole grains for the extra fiber pretty much.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 440 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions